For a couple weeks, I have heard or read a few reports about H1N1, or the new swine flu that first surfaced in April, and wondered why – despite reports of 800 U.S. deaths already -- little commentary is being directed to the Obama Administration for its (in)ability to produce adequate quantities of vaccine?
Three articles in today’s (10/23/09) Washington Post prompted me to add my voice to the discussion.
There is no hysteria about the flu, which is good – very good. But there is also little clamor about whether the federal government is doing enough to guard against a disease that sent the world into a frenzy a few months ago with fears of a horrendous pandemic.
This made me think about the reaction to the Bush Administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, where at least 1,836 people were reported killed by the storm and ensuing floods. There have already been nearly half that number of deaths from the swine flu, as reported in Petula Dvorak’s article. [She has much better sources than I. My Google searches turned up little information.]
Are we downplaying the flu for sound medical reasons (about 36,000 Americans die annually from seasonal flu, per the Centers for Disease Control) or political ones? Strangely, per Wikipedia, which we know may or may not be correct, the U.S. implemented a new reporting system on August 30th where localities need not “discern between pandemic and seasonal flu.” [I am awaiting CDC confirmation or denial.]
More attention may be brought to this topic, which may be (or not) good news. Today, The Washington Post also printed an above-the-fold front-page article entitled “Scramble to parcel out H1N1 vaccine” as well as an editorial “Vaccine frustration”.
With three stories in one newspaper on one day, what point am I trying to make?
First, if one reads these articles, which I hope you do, I believe you will agree little mention is made about possible Administration missteps in delivering a sufficient vaccine supply timely. You may recall after the U.S. was relatively unscathed by swine flu this Spring (Mexico was especially hard hit), health officials predicted the H1N1 would return with a vengeance.
Second, and this goes to the heart of “media bias.” Where is the call (or outrage) for accountability in the Obama Administration for the lack of vaccines? We know how the media criticized the Bush Administration – for years! -- for its Katrina response. I make no claim that such comments were unwarranted. I merely ask why such hard-hitting questions are not appearing in the press. I believe you will see that the tenor is not trenchant in the Post’s articles about the Administration’s efforts to protect the public.
My wish is not that reports critical to the Administration flood the media. Rather, it is that my readers ask whether comparable treatment is given in comparable situations. The problem with anyone’s ‘bias,’ mine included, is agreeing upon which situations are similar.
Further, I do not wish the current administration to be pilloried, as I believe it is acting as best as it is able given available information and capabilities. But I also believe the same was the case with Hurricane Katrina. Without rehashing the old stories about federal v. state v. local (in)competencies and (ir)responsibilities, can anyone fairly say that President Bush cared little about how many would die in New Orleans or that President Obama cares not about H1N1 deaths now?
Balance and fairness are needed. But so is a keen eye on the words, tone, and context of what is reported (or not) regarding national policy deliberation and delivery.
Pay attention to how this story evolves. Before Christmas, I suspect more people will have died from H1N1 than Hurricane Katrina. In 2005, we had 72 hours notice of a likely disaster in New Orleans. In 2009, we have had over six months of warning about the swine flu.
Follow how similarly or differently these cases are handled. Then ask: why?
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III
Approximately 670 words.
© October 23, 2009
+++
YETMO: “You’re Entitled To My Opinion,” A Balanced Point of View
"To stimulate thought, debate, and introspection”